Hillary`s Cancer Cluster Bluster

Exploiting

junk science is great for re-election campaign
coffers.

Thus, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton`s first major
crusades after she took office was to whip up public
health hysteria on Long Island, where some activists
have blamed slightly elevated breast cancer rates on
everything from pesticides to power lines to planes.

"There`s something going on in the environment,"
Sen. Clinton declared two summers ago.  Long Island
women, she asserted, were being “plagued” by

breast cancer. Never mind that the annual breast
cancer case rate in the region—117 cases per every
100,000 women—is just a few percent higher than the
national rate of about 114 per 100,000 annually.

Sen. Clinton`s politically active constituents
heartily and hastily seized the eco-alarmist spotlight.
Karen Joy Miller of the Huntington Breast Cancer
Coalition stated at Sen. Clinton`s

public hearing on the matter: "The air we
breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat all break
down our body and cancer can take hold. So I think we
need to educate the public on lowering their risk."

Regina Axelrod, a political science professor at
Adelphi University, added: "I`m hoping that not only
is there awareness, but that

federal monies will be used to establish
correlations and then, most important, that decisions
will be made to ban these carcinogens."

Sentence first, verdict afterwards!

Red Queen Hillary and her courtiers` expert
conclusions notwithstanding, there is no shred of
legitimate scientific evidence connecting breast cancer
on Long Island to chemicals or other environmental
causes.

Environmental activists in Long Island and elsewhere
continue to blame persistent pollutants in drinking
water for elevated rates of incidence of breast cancer
in some Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.  But last
year, an $8 million epidemiological study funded by the
National Cancer Institute found that exposure to
organochlorine compounds, including polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides including chlordane,
DDT, and dieldrin, do not increase risk of the disease
in women.

Researchers tested the blood and urine from 3,000
women in Long Island and concluded that women who
exhibited traces of the chemicals in their bodies were
no more likely to develop breast cancer than unexposed
women—findings consistent with every other large-scale
study on breast cancer and chemical exposure.

Another bogeyman is electromagnetic radiation from
power lines. But the

latest Long Island cancer study, published in the
most recent issue of the American Journal of
Epidemiology, found no association between exposure
to electromagnetic fields and breast cancer.

Researchers examined 1,161 women on Long Island —
576 who had breast cancer and 585 who did not.

After taking measurements of magnetic fields in
often-used rooms in the women`s houses, such as bedrooms
and living rooms, and mapping the power lines
surrounding each home, the decade-long study concluded
there was no evidence that power line exposure hampered
production of the estrogen-related hormone melatonin.
These findings are consistent with every major
investigation of the alleged power line-cancer link.
After conducting an exhaustive assessment of over 500
studies published in the last 17 years, the independent
National Research Council reported that there is "no
conclusive and consistent evidence" that exposure to
low-level electromagnetic fields threatens human health.

If it isn`t the evil chemicals or invisible rays,
then what`s causing the alleged cancer cluster in Long
Island? Scientists not seeking Senate re-election have
noted that certain lifestyle choices—from smoking to
delaying child-bearing to opting against
breast-feeding—have been associated with higher rates of
breast cancer. Alas, pointing out these epidemiological
connections won`t win you Long Island soccer mom votes.

More important is the simple concept of chance. The
population of the United State is roughly 300 million
people. Based on random statistics, the existence of

cancer clusters is inevitable. Disease rates will
naturally be high in some places and low in others.
Unlike the

college student admissions process, Mother Nature
cannot be socially engineered by government meddlers.

That won`t stop politicians from trying, of course.
Preaching fear has always been more lucrative than
promoting skepticism.

Michelle Malkin [email
her] is author of

Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists,
Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.
Click

here for Peter Brimelow`s review. Click

here for Michelle Malkin`s website.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.